🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his Reform UK party as a distinct occurrence that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional epochal event. However this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the US and South America, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties like his are also leading in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party is currently the most popular party. A Hungarian political force, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Italian political group are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, motivated by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, diminish fundamental freedoms and destroy international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge exposes a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy ignore at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “group priority” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment that helps explain why the world is now composed of 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and ethnic nationalism is the force behind the violations of global human rights standards not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

It is important to understand the root causes, common to almost every country, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It starts with a widely felt sense that a globalization that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel left out and marginalized, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, transitioning from a unipolar world once dominated by the United States to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means open commerce is giving way to protectionism. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies characterized by reshoring and friend-shoring and by bans on cross-border trade, foreign funding and technology transfer, sinking global collaboration to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it solidifies we can find hope in the pragmatism of the global public. In a poll conducted for a major foundation, of 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a significant portion are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to embrace global teamwork than many of the officials who rule over them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the world's people (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel peaceful living between diverse communities is unattainable or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

But there are an additional group at the other end, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the world's citizens are moderate in views: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “them”, opponents always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Are most moderates prefer a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or city wall? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A first group, 22%, will back aid efforts to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists feel the pain of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for global progress are spent well. And there is a final category, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a clear majority can be constructed not just for humanitarian aid if funds are used wisely but also for global action to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is presented on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we stress the reciprocal benefits that flow to them and their own country. And thus for those who have long wondered whether we work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the answer is both.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome today’s negative, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that vilifies newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and welcoming national pride that addresses people’s desire to belong and connects to their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the top concern – and it's clear that it must quickly be brought under control – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public are even more worried by what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their own local communities. Recently, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can drive out what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “dysfunctional” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our economy and society.

But as the leader also reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. A Reform leader hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was intended – the largest reductions in government programs. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not repair downtrodden communities but ravage them, create social division and destroy any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, needy or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which school and which public service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the public are telling us all over the west is that they want their leaders to rebuild our financial systems and our communities. “The party” and its international partners should be revealed day after day for plans that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be in the future, we can go beyond highlighting the party's contradictions by presenting a argument for a improved nation that appeals not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.